Older voters play a crucial role in the result of any British General Election. Not only are there a good many of them, but they are more likely to vote than younger voters — becoming of increasing significance as turnouts fall. Furthermore, of course, their election agenda is in many respects distinctive, forcing those who hope for their votes to give them separate consideration.
A four week campaign, half gone, and the Tories are becalmed with their core vote of around 30% +/- 3%, just where they've been ever since William Hague instead of Ken Clarke was chosen as Leader of the Conservative Party. At times like these, one speculates "what if … ".
Older voters play a crucial role in the result of any British General Election. Not only are there a good many of them, but they are more likely to vote than younger voters — becoming of increasing significance as turnouts fall. Furthermore, of course, their election agenda is in many respects distinctive, forcing those who hope for their votes to give them separate consideration.
ICM reports today on a 1000 case telephone poll carried out on 19-21 May, which finds a 1997-like 45% Labour, 32% Tory, 17% Liberal Democrat result, which if projected to seats in the House of Commons would deliver Labour of the order of 177 seats, before adjusting for regional swing and turnout, although ICM does report on those they think most likely to vote.
Since the beginning of the election the British Election Study Gallup poll has been asking c. 150 people each day a number of questions relating to the election, including how people intended to vote, their certainty of voting, interest in the election, issues of importance, liking and disliking of political leaders, etc. Up until Friday, I had not read about it nor had been aware of its design.
The British pollsters for some years have followed the Gallup method of determining voting intention, asking a two part question, "How do you intend to vote in the General Election on 7th June?", and leaving aside those who say at that point they would not vote, asking the remainder, usually about 90%, "Which party are you most inclined to support?" (asked of those who say they are undecided or refuse to say for which party they would vote for). As a frame of reference, figures of 30% undecided, 10% would not vote and 3% refused would not be unusual at the first question, and when asked the second, the undecideds drop to 10% and the refusals to 2%.
More bad news for the Conservatives in the latest polls. NOP is the only major polling company reported in papers today — as both the Observer (ICM) and the Sunday Telegraph (MORI) take a break in mid-campaign from spending the money to find out that the Labour Party is still flat-lining in the polls.
Commentators and pundits, never mind the politicians and the public, continue to be misled by their focus on the gap or lead, and not the share of the vote for each party. I'd go further than that, and say watch the Tory share, for the way ICM have been asking the voting intention question, 'prompting' the respondent with the names of the parties, has led to a higher level of support for the Lib Dems than MORI, NOP and Gallup. Now that Gallup have changed their methodology to more closely approximate their American practice of reporting voting intention on those they think will be 'certain' or 'very likely' to vote, and focusing on the vote in the constituency, is likely to do the same.
The omens for turnout at the election remain poor. The figures from our latest poll for the Times, put into context by the corresponding figures from 1997, are in the table below.
